OT: Money from Trump..

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 4:38:31 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it.

Not hard? First, it has to be pre 1986, there are only a few hundred
thousand in existence, so if you find one for sale, it's likely $10K+
for an ancient one, not a sleek, modern Uzi.

I don't get your point. There are arms you can possess, there are arms you can't possess. Machine guns can be possessed.

You say you feel there should be no restrictions. Should bomb materials be allowed?

That's the first barrier. Then most states either don't allow them
period or make it virtually impossible to license one. Those would be
all the blue states, eg NY, NJ, CA, CT, MA, IL and most other states too.

Again, what is your point???

It's not like carrying a concealed weapon,

That's right, a concealed weapon and permit is much easier to obtain
in more places. Many, eg FL, NC, TX you don't need to show any reason.
Others, like NJ, NY you do and it's all but impossible to get one.
And you can buy the gun for $400.



you don't need a justification. I don't have strong feelings either way on further gun control, so it would not bother me at all if the government had the same regulations for possession of all firearms. I do believe people who have weapons should be responsible for the events that happen as a result of owning them.

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it, guess what, I can be sued. Same should be true of guns.

A bazooka and heavy weapons are a different matter. The intent of the second amendment, to give the "people" the power to overthrow the government is long gone and not possible any more without endangering the entire populous..

That activity always pretty much endangered the entire population.

What activity??? Possessing military weapons? Overthrowing the government???

. or actually at all. Imagine if the many mass murders that are so common these days had been perpetuated with heavy weapons. Even that would not result in the "people" having the power to overthrow the government.

Perhaps it requires another amendment to the Constitution to update it, but the second amendment is really far past it's useful purpose.

No response to that?

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 4:38:31 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it.

Not hard? First, it has to be pre 1986, there are only a few hundred
thousand in existence, so if you find one for sale, it's likely $10K+
for an ancient one, not a sleek, modern Uzi.

I don't get your point. There are arms you can possess, there are arms you can't possess. Machine guns can be possessed.

You said it's "not hard". In most states it's flat out prohibited to
possess a machine gun, end of story there. In many others, it's so
hard that for all practical purposes, it's not possible. And then in
the minority of states where you actually can, be prepared to pay $10K+
for an old, pre 1986 one.

You say you feel there should be no restrictions. Should bomb materials be allowed?

I never said any such thing.

That's the first barrier. Then most states either don't allow them
period or make it virtually impossible to license one. Those would be
all the blue states, eg NY, NJ, CA, CT, MA, IL and most other states too.

Again, what is your point???

That what you said, that it's "not hard" to legally buy and own
a machine gun or full auto, is incorrect. In most states, you
can't because they are ILLEGAL. That's beyond hard, it's impossible.

It's not like carrying a concealed weapon,

That's right, a concealed weapon and permit is much easier to obtain
in more places. Many, eg FL, NC, TX you don't need to show any reason.
Others, like NJ, NY you do and it's all but impossible to get one.
And you can buy the gun for $400.



you don't need a justification. I don't have strong feelings either way on further gun control, so it would not bother me at all if the government had the same regulations for possession of all firearms. I do believe people who have weapons should be responsible for the events that happen as a result of owning them.

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it, guess what, I can be sued. Same should be true of guns.

A bazooka and heavy weapons are a different matter. The intent of the second amendment, to give the "people" the power to overthrow the government is long gone and not possible any more without endangering the entire populous..

That activity always pretty much endangered the entire population.

What activity??? Possessing military weapons? Overthrowing the government???

Overthrowing the govt, read what you wrote.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 4:38:31 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it.

Not hard? First, it has to be pre 1986, there are only a few hundred
thousand in existence, so if you find one for sale, it's likely $10K+
for an ancient one, not a sleek, modern Uzi.

I don't get your point. There are arms you can possess, there are arms you can't possess. Machine guns can be possessed.

You said it's "not hard". In most states it's flat out prohibited to
possess a machine gun, end of story there. In many others, it's so
hard that for all practical purposes, it's not possible. And then in
the minority of states where you actually can, be prepared to pay $10K+
for an old, pre 1986 one.

Ok, if your state doesn't outlaw automatic guns it is not hard. The issue is the Constitution. You seem to want to argue every little point to death.. How about we stick to the main thought?

You say you feel there should be no restrictions. Should bomb materials be allowed?

I never said any such thing.

No one is accusing you. I'm asking where your barrier is. You did say "Weapons of war". So where do you draw the line?

That's the first barrier. Then most states either don't allow them
period or make it virtually impossible to license one. Those would be
all the blue states, eg NY, NJ, CA, CT, MA, IL and most other states too.

Again, what is your point???

That what you said, that it's "not hard" to legally buy and own
a machine gun or full auto, is incorrect. In most states, you
can't because they are ILLEGAL. That's beyond hard, it's impossible.

The context is the Constitution. Please try to not just argue, but to construct a rational train of thought.

It's not like carrying a concealed weapon,

That's right, a concealed weapon and permit is much easier to obtain
in more places. Many, eg FL, NC, TX you don't need to show any reason.
Others, like NJ, NY you do and it's all but impossible to get one.
And you can buy the gun for $400.



you don't need a justification. I don't have strong feelings either way on further gun control, so it would not bother me at all if the government had the same regulations for possession of all firearms. I do believe people who have weapons should be responsible for the events that happen as a result of owning them.

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it, guess what, I can be sued. Same should be true of guns.

A bazooka and heavy weapons are a different matter. The intent of the second amendment, to give the "people" the power to overthrow the government is long gone and not possible any more without endangering the entire populous..

That activity always pretty much endangered the entire population.

What activity??? Possessing military weapons? Overthrowing the government???

Overthrowing the govt, read what you wrote.

So what is your point???

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:32:59 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 4:38:31 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it.

Not hard? First, it has to be pre 1986, there are only a few hundred
thousand in existence, so if you find one for sale, it's likely $10K+
for an ancient one, not a sleek, modern Uzi.

I don't get your point. There are arms you can possess, there are arms you can't possess. Machine guns can be possessed.

You said it's "not hard". In most states it's flat out prohibited to
possess a machine gun, end of story there. In many others, it's so
hard that for all practical purposes, it's not possible. And then in
the minority of states where you actually can, be prepared to pay $10K+
for an old, pre 1986 one.

Ok, if your state doesn't outlaw automatic guns it is not hard. The issue is the Constitution.

It's not the Constitution, it has nothing to do with it. And even
if your state doesn't ban them, in a lot of other states, it's
still not easy. Just the fact that you're going to pay $10K+
for an old one, I think a lot of people would say is inconsistent
with "not hard".




>You seem to want to argue every little point to death. How about we stick to the main thought?

ROFL. Little point? You posted that it's "not hard" to legally
obtain a machine gun. In fact, it's outright prohibited in most
states and now you say that's a "little point"? WTF?

You say you feel there should be no restrictions. Should bomb materials be allowed?

I never said any such thing.

No one is accusing you.

That's a lie, right above you posted that "you say you feel there
should be no restrictions". I never said anything like that.



>I'm asking where your barrier is. You did say "Weapons of war". So where do you draw the line?

There you go again. I never said anything about "weapons of war".

That's the first barrier. Then most states either don't allow them
period or make it virtually impossible to license one. Those would be
all the blue states, eg NY, NJ, CA, CT, MA, IL and most other states too.

Again, what is your point???

That what you said, that it's "not hard" to legally buy and own
a machine gun or full auto, is incorrect. In most states, you
can't because they are ILLEGAL. That's beyond hard, it's impossible.

The context is the Constitution. Please try to not just argue, but to construct a rational train of thought.

WTF? Rational train of thought? The Constitution doesn't say
anything about machine guns.

It's not like carrying a concealed weapon,

That's right, a concealed weapon and permit is much easier to obtain
in more places. Many, eg FL, NC, TX you don't need to show any reason.
Others, like NJ, NY you do and it's all but impossible to get one.
And you can buy the gun for $400.



you don't need a justification. I don't have strong feelings either way on further gun control, so it would not bother me at all if the government had the same regulations for possession of all firearms. I do believe people who have weapons should be responsible for the events that happen as a result of owning them.

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it, guess what, I can be sued. Same should be true of guns.

A bazooka and heavy weapons are a different matter. The intent of the second amendment, to give the "people" the power to overthrow the government is long gone and not possible any more without endangering the entire populous..

That activity always pretty much endangered the entire population.

What activity??? Possessing military weapons? Overthrowing the government???

Overthrowing the govt, read what you wrote.

So what is your point???

Mostly that you don't know what you're talking about with machine
guns being "not hard to get".

 

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:10:40 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 4:38:31 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it.

Not hard? First, it has to be pre 1986, there are only a few hundred
thousand in existence, so if you find one for sale, it's likely $10K+
for an ancient one, not a sleek, modern Uzi.

I don't get your point. There are arms you can possess, there are arms you can't possess. Machine guns can be possessed.

You said it's "not hard". In most states it's flat out prohibited to
possess a machine gun, end of story there. In many others, it's so
hard that for all practical purposes, it's not possible. And then in
the minority of states where you actually can, be prepared to pay $10K+
for an old, pre 1986 one.

Ok, if your state doesn't outlaw automatic guns it is not hard.

You're wrong. It's very hard to obtain a license for an automatic
weapon, even in states that allow it. It's not cheap, either.
Trader's $10K doesn't even come close.

> The issue is the Constitution. You seem to want to argue every little point to death. How about we stick to the main thought?

Then post one. You were wrong. Period.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:60c7c3c1-aa88-4914-b155-
b1a1d54650c5@googlegroups.com:

Nonsense. The muskets used at the time were the same as the
hunting
weapons of the day, the rifles that were common in the colonies or
very similar to them.

Bullshit. Very few had rifled bores and those that did were rich
or militarized.

AFTER the civil war the rifled bore became commonplace owned
instruments.

The proviso is for well regulated because back then we had no
communications like now, so organizing folks took time and a lot of
recorded 'order'.

Now, well regulated means not giving advanced guns to any but the
most scrutinized, and not any felons and that is about it.

Should mean federal time to have a gun as a felon, but prison
overcrowding means many do not even face federal charges.

Just ask Snoop Dog. He ended up with a TV show where he showed us
how he raised his kid to be all ganged up like he was. How
quaint... not!

The days before they executed Tookie Williams, ol' Snoop Dog was
fighting to keep him alive... a minimum three time murderer,
because he 'wrote books against gangs' in prison. The day after he
was executed, ol' SnoopTard was up on a stage with another rapper
shouting with a fist pump "Gangs will live forever!".

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:34061731-2ab4-483a-a616-5c7d4992e14b@googlegroups.com:

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it,
guess what, I can be sued.

No, you cannot. If you let another drive your car yes. But a car
stolen by a thief relieves the owner of ANYTHING the thief does with
the car.

> Same should be true of guns.

The murderer who used a shotgun to murder my aunt and my cousin
broke into a house to steal it from a friend of his. I feel that
person should face charges.

Why? Because the shotgun was a sawed off stock, sawed off barrel.
That is two federal offenses and a full size gun would not likely
have become a target for a thief.

At the very least, they should have faced the two fed offenses, if
not also some kind of involuntary complicity by displaying the
fucking thing on his wall. That is different, because it was an
illicit deadly weapon. Theft of it was purpose specific.

The person did not steal your car with the intent of using it as a
weapon.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:60c7c3c1-aa88-4914-b155-b1a1d54650c5@googlegroups.com:

The only operational, functional of the above you could own period
is the machine gun or auto rifle and only those manufactured
before 1986. That is federally, most states have their own laws
that prohibit them anyway or make it so hard to legally do it,
that it's effectively impossible.

One can own... tanks, howitzers, automatic weapons, fighter planes,
missile silos... All with varying levels of functionality and all with
varying requisites for licensing.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:52e342d6-b558-4eeb-8858-b73957b41669@googlegroups.com:

The proviso is for well regulated because back then we had no
communications like now, so organizing folks took time and a lot
of recorded 'order'.

Now, well regulated means not giving advanced guns to any but
the
most scrutinized, and not any felons and that is about it.

More nonsense. What is an "advanced gun" and who are these
'most scrutinized" citizens who are allowed to have one?

You cannot even follow your own posts. A machine gun is an
advanced gun.

AND I can manufacture ANY non-powder actuated 'gun' without ANY
license at all.

You, I would serve up a curare dart from a mere puff of breath.
So symbolic to shut you up with such a small force. It would be a
weak dose though, so instead of just dying, you would lay there,
unable to move, for hours or days... before finally puking out.

But I could just as well create a handheld (a rifle) railgun
firing very small projectiles.... that travel right through you AND
your armor.

A felon is prohibited under federal law from owning any gun
period.

Yeah... I said that, ya stupid putz. Except I did not say
"period". You are an idiot.

It is called 'a disability' and most certainly can be rescinded.
Also, it only covers powder actuated 'firearms'.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:1c53a795-50f4-4855-844a-0f2504b5ad69@googlegroups.com:

How about if they did steal it with the intention of using it
for a crime spree or terrorist attack where the car then caused
death and destruction? You were better off sticking to what you
first said, which is that if it's stolen, then the owner isn't
responsible. But I'd probably temper that with typically, because
there probably are unusual circumstances where an owner might be
negligent and held responsible.

You obviously missed the entire post. That is exactly what I
outlined.

I also outlined that if the item is already an illicit object, it
raises to the level of complicity to own and openly display it.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:1c53a795-50f4-4855-844a-
0f2504b5ad69@googlegroups.com:

Yes, a great case that would be. Your honor, to prove my case
that they are guilty of possessing an illegal, sawed off shotgun,
I call my first and only witness, the thief who broke into the
house and stole it.

You really are one retarded mother fucker. You know nothing about
the case.

The murderer was caught. The gun was recovered at the scene, and
the modifications were proven to be from years earlier. Proof that
it was already that way at the place he stole it from, and the home
owner admitted that the gun was in that configuration while he owned
and displayed it and when it was stolen. I half think the fucker
gave him the gun.

You really are one pathetic fucking retard, and I would appreciate
you staying the fuck out of it. You know nothing about the murder
of my family members, so you need to fuck off, jackass.

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 9:40:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:60c7c3c1-aa88-4914-b155-
b1a1d54650c5@googlegroups.com:

Nonsense. The muskets used at the time were the same as the
hunting
weapons of the day, the rifles that were common in the colonies or
very similar to them.


Bullshit. Very few had rifled bores and those that did were rich
or militarized.

AFTER the civil war the rifled bore became commonplace owned
instruments.

We were talking about the Revolutionary War, not after the Civil
War. Try to follow the facts.

The proviso is for well regulated because back then we had no
communications like now, so organizing folks took time and a lot of
recorded 'order'.

Now, well regulated means not giving advanced guns to any but the
most scrutinized, and not any felons and that is about it.

More nonsense. What is an "advanced gun" and who are these
'most scrutinized" citizens who are allowed to have one?
A felon is prohibited under federal law from owning any gun period.

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 9:07:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:34061731-2ab4-483a-a616-5c7d4992e14b@googlegroups.com:

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it,
guess what, I can be sued.

No, you cannot. If you let another drive your car yes. But a car
stolen by a thief relieves the owner of ANYTHING the thief does with
the car.


Same should be true of guns.

The murderer who used a shotgun to murder my aunt and my cousin
broke into a house to steal it from a friend of his. I feel that
person should face charges.

Why? Because the shotgun was a sawed off stock, sawed off barrel.
That is two federal offenses and a full size gun would not likely
have become a target for a thief.

The crook doesn't have a saw at home?

At the very least, they should have faced the two fed offenses, if
not also some kind of involuntary complicity by displaying the
fucking thing on his wall. That is different, because it was an
illicit deadly weapon. Theft of it was purpose specific.

Yes, a great case that would be. Your honor, to prove my case
that they are guilty of possessing an illegal, sawed off shotgun,
I call my first and only witness, the thief who broke into the
house and stole it.

The person did not steal your car with the intent of using it as a
weapon.

How about if they did steal it with the intention of using it
for a crime spree or terrorist attack where the car then caused
death and destruction? You were better off sticking to what you
first said, which is that if it's stolen, then the owner isn't responsible. But I'd probably temper that with typically,
because there probably are unusual circumstances where an owner
might be negligent and held responsible.

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 9:43:19 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:60c7c3c1-aa88-4914-b155-b1a1d54650c5@googlegroups.com:

The only operational, functional of the above you could own period
is the machine gun or auto rifle and only those manufactured
before 1986. That is federally, most states have their own laws
that prohibit them anyway or make it so hard to legally do it,
that it's effectively impossible.


One can own... tanks, howitzers, automatic weapons, fighter planes,
missile silos... All with varying levels of functionality and all with
varying requisites for licensing.

You go girl. Show us how the private citizen can own a functioning
howitzer or tank cannon. In other words, they can only own a
non-functional howitzer or tank cannon, tank machine gun, etc.
Missile silos, sure, as long as it's empty. Geez, the nonsense you spew.

 

>but several states ALSO forgoe one's constitutional rights when >under probation

Common. And you bring up a point there. The national Constitution protects certain rights, not states'. It might be reasonable that they could take away rights guaranteed by the state Constitution but I can think of no law that allows a state to suspend rights guaranteed by the national Constitution.. From where would come this authority ? Can you think of some clause I am missing somewhere ?

Now SOME rights you cede when you sign the probation papers. Those constitute a contract and for the consideration of not having to do the whole sentence they agree to certain terms. However there is another aspect of it which for example, prevents a kinky master/slave relationship being enforced in court, and nothing outside the law is enforceable. Same if someone wants to go into indentured servitude, last I heard if a contract is unenforceable under law it matters not who the parties may be. The reality might be different but I think that is how the law is. You know I'm wrong speak up, I am not a lawyer, I am just one of those who is there to vexas in atrium.(cain't git too upp-i-ty doing that folks with that jail over there)

I am in a position I can blow off probation, all I have to do is not go and nothing happens. At least it hasn't since like 1994. But then this last case didn't have to much of a max sentence so if they started that shit I would just get up in court and say "No probation, when I walk out that door I do whatever I damn well please". I am not reporting every month to someone half my age and of about a fourth of the intelligence if that, I am not "seeking gainful employment". (because within a year I will be making more than they do at home tax fucking free) I am not telling you nor asking you when I leave the state and I am keeping my guns". And "I am not pissing in a cup, even if you got me with dirty piss PROVE I did it in Parma, then MAYBE we talk about your right to tell me what to take into MY body and have nice nother six month trial over a fucking $250 fine, hey, last time was fun !"..

Back in about 1982 I got busted drunk driving. So they sent me to this outfit called "DWI Counterattack" which is of course run by the fiends of the judges in the area. "Everything is confidential here". Well people must have taught DHS what confidential means because they show up at probation quoting my answers and all this shit, and they got me a paper to sign. Go to AA or go to inpatient. Fuck you, this is my first DWI ever, what happens if I don't sign ? Right in front of the PO.

"What happens if I don't sign"
"That's up to the judge"
"Then shove it".

All this fake authority in the world, people usually sign themselves into it. Sign an HOA where you live ? Wait a minute, deed covenants are illegal right ? Like no selling to Blacks n shit ? So we instead an area where new buyers have to be "approved" ? Yaaaa, OK.

And probation is among the most egregious. They can forbid you from some social media or other forms of communication like newsletters you might publish, first amendment gone. Almost all of them say no guns even for a misdemeanor so out goes the second amendment. The fourth is gone, some of those papers say the can search your home at will, EVEN IF YOU LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE. Even mentioning the fifth will get you "violated" which means back in the pokey.

And the felony situation, people who transgress against society must be treated in way commensurate with their transgression. Speeding tickets, how about they become a felony ? Damn, we can get rid of their guns that way !

No, what we need is an iron clad law that if there is not victim (dead or alive of course) then there is no felony. If not, they could make farting a felony. That would serve to keep people who eat beans and boiled eggs form voting until a judge gets enough grease to restore their voting rights.

What gets me is that democrats automatically assume all criminals are going to vote for them. Conduct some polls in the prisons. If fact poll Blacks and Hispanics. Most people would be very surprised at the results, in fact they have started that and are finding a hell of alot more republican support among a demographic which they thought was in the bag. They are not in a very comfortable situation now. And it is their own doing. Al they do all day is "GET TRUMP GET TRUMP GET TRUMP". That s not their primary mission. What is, does anyone fucking remember ?

Well being democrats I would say they are supposed to work for the little guy and try to get a hand up hopefully rather than the usual hand out for the needy. They are supposed to bring federal dollars back to their home state, they built that pork barrel. Sup[posed to legislate to improve the enforcement of equal treatment across not only racial and religious (yeah right) lines but those of economics.

Sound about right ? In fact fact it sounds pretty good doesn't it ? Well OK, now in the last couple of years, what have they done ? GET TRUMP GET TRUMP GET TRUMP. You wanna help the little guy ? Just leave Trump the fuck alone and try to get yup some legislation reasonable enough for the republicans to sign off and at least SEND IT TO TRUMP'S DESK.

I've seen the legislation they come up with lately, honor this person, give money to this one soldier, rename some fucking bridge. Nothing of substance. I guess they just don't have the time.

Some of them, whatever ones have not had the vacuum cleaner hooked up to their skull for long, democrats Are not al voting democrat. An ELECTED OFFICIAL of the state democratic party is one of my clients. He is in the position where he votes on who they endorse and who they do not.

Voted Trump. Might again he say but not committing until he sees all what happens until then, and who the democrats come up with. A MEMBER OF THE PARTY voting against the party ! And now with them all having OCD about Trump, who they are NOT going to get rid of, what do their voters see ?

I'm gonna tellya why you gonna lose. Because even the people on your side, when they got more pay and more work THAT is what they will see first. You can own or control every fucking media outlet in the world but the wallet speaks louder.

And that is why Trump's pardons are coming out in 2025. Don't go nuts around here folks, I just bought a new 9mm. and need to sight it in... A moving target would make that all kinds of fun.

Hmmm, is a voting station a gun free zone ? Almost can't be, say you got a CCW license and walk there to vote. Deny your right to vote for LEGALLY exercising your rights ? I think maybe I will call the NRA and find out.

(not really, I don't want to even be on the list of people who ever called them)

 

>Sort of like the joke about the Bible - never has a book (at the >very least) written by so many geniuses, been interpreted by so >many fools

Debatable.

I see it as couched in prose, like The Quatrains. Also though there are moral lessons (of varying value) some of it is nonsense. think Leviticus here. That fucker was as crazy as Hammurabi.

Even the ten commandments, five maybe ". "Thou Shalt Not Kill". you better start defining kill or else we have to start eating those cows alive or some shit. And along all "their god" gave them according to "their authors", let's put it this way, I'll rephrase it;

"I give you my chosen People, this land. Now all you have to do is go there, kill every Man, Woman, child, pet, animal, ox ass and dog and then this land is yours". I really do think someone like George W. Bush would get into that. After all, manifest destiny right ?

But thou shalt not kill. And not to mention that we cannot live without killing. Interpretation ? Well I a think that we need to do this logically. Anybody who wrote that ate meat and who the fuck knows what else. All dead. All killed. Obey the commandment and you die. Why the fuck would someone who created you want you to voluntarily starve to death ion his whim ? See, it is so fucking obvious people do not get it. the right version ? RIGHT HERE -

THOU SHALT NOT MURDER]

Murder is killing for spite, gain, sport or revenge and the jury's still out on revenge here, I believe it is justified sometimes. To kill for defense or to eat is obviously not murder.

So OK, let's figure out how to live without killing. Well could pick berries. Well strawberries. Wait, we have a problem. A strawberry is not a fruit. Technically they are close, like aggregate fruit. The actual fruit is those little dark things on the outside. So if you are eating one of them you are eating a shitload of little unborn babies.

The ONE way I can see (if you got other ideas come on with your bad self) is like in a couple of generations our digestive system could adapt for carrion. We go to the sea and harvest salt the old way and not refine it, that's the trace minerals. We could do it but we would be dependent upon animals killing enough of each other to supply us. you need bulk, while the salt might have every nutrient you need, for the digestive system to work you need some bulk. Or you could eat some clay, been done. Guess what continent racist. Wasn't North America...

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 10:29:29 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:52e342d6-b558-4eeb-8858-b73957b41669@googlegroups.com:


The proviso is for well regulated because back then we had no
communications like now, so organizing folks took time and a lot
of recorded 'order'.

Now, well regulated means not giving advanced guns to any but
the
most scrutinized, and not any felons and that is about it.

More nonsense. What is an "advanced gun" and who are these
'most scrutinized" citizens who are allowed to have one?

You cannot even follow your own posts. A machine gun is an
advanced gun.

AND I can manufacture ANY non-powder actuated 'gun' without ANY
license at all.

You, I would serve up a curare dart from a mere puff of breath.
So symbolic to shut you up with such a small force. It would be a
weak dose though, so instead of just dying, you would lay there,
unable to move, for hours or days... before finally puking out.

I'll add the above to my files, documenting the threats you
make here.

But I could just as well create a handheld (a rifle) railgun
firing very small projectiles.... that travel right through you AND
your armor.

A felon is prohibited under federal law from owning any gun
period.

Yeah... I said that, ya stupid putz. Except I did not say
"period". You are an idiot.

It is called 'a disability' and most certainly can be rescinded.
Also, it only covers powder actuated 'firearms'.

A felony is a "disability"? More confused nonsense.

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:04:56 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:09:22 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:32:30 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

So what? Just because the Constitution allows something doesn't mean
that the states can't then regulate it and that's where it can be
addressed, if they choose to. With all the serious, major issues
facing the country, worrying about this is near the bottom of my list.

Exactly. You don't care about the rights of others, only your own.

--

That's another stupid lib lie. I simply cited what the Constitution
says.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f58078d7-d213-45a3-b83f-
044f5a2ed631@googlegroups.com:

> A felony is a "disability"?

Real easy to google you mentally disabled punk fuck.
You are not confused. You are self retarded.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f58078d7-d213-45a3-b83f-
044f5a2ed631@googlegroups.com:

A felony is a "disability"? More confused nonsense.

A felon is considered under disability. Not the same as "disabled".
It is a firearm thing. I do not expect a putz like you to understand.
After all, you are one mentally disabled piece of shit.

All you want to do is be confused. You have your reward, you punk
fucktard.